A bill to grant immunity from civil liability to any person who voluntarily notifies appropriate security personnel of suspicious activity believed to threaten transportation safety or security or takes reasonable action to mitigate such activity.

Mr. President, competence, independence, and sound judgment are the lodestar of the administration of justice in this country. Unfortunately, over the past few months, I and many Americans have been forced to question on all three counts those whom this President has appointed to lead the Department of Justice. Indeed, with each passing day, we sense more and more that something is gravely wrong.

For example, we have learned about the misuse and abuse of the Department's power to issue national security letters under the PATRIOT Act--which, even under the most legitimate and benign circumstances, represents a truly imposing authority. As you know, a national security letter, or NSL, is a Government demand for private information, issued without a warrant to third parties such as banks, phone companies, and Internet service providers. In March, the Department of Justice's inspector general reported that NSLs were being ``seriously misused.'' Among other things, there were no clear guidelines for issuing national security letters. They were issued without proper authorization, there was sloppy recordkeeping by the FBI, and there were no procedures for purging a citizen's private information if the investigation was closed.

We have also, of course, learned about the unprecedented firings of eight U.S. attorneys--dismissals which seem to have been motivated by politics, marred by incompetence, or, more likely, both.

The details of the Department's misjudgments in this matter, and particularly the degree to which partisan politics has infiltrated this Department, become more numerous and more damaging to the Attorney General's credibility every day. But the politicization of the Department should come as no surprise when we examine how the rules governing initial contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice on non-national security-related investigations and cases-- traditional criminal cases--have changed since President Bush took office.

During previous administrations, there were strict rules governing contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice on investigations and cases--and for good reason. A strong firewall is necessary to prevent undue and untoward efforts to inject politics into the administration of justice. During the Clinton administration, this firewall was articulated in a September 1994 letter from Attorney General Janet Reno to White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler. It is my understanding that credit goes to Senator Hatch, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his interest in seeing this policy confirmed in this way. So this has been a continuing and bipartisan concern, this question of the firewall between the White House and the Department of justice. The Reno letter stated:

Initial communications between the White House and the

Justice Department regarding any pending Department

investigation or criminal or civil case should involve only

the White House counsel or deputy counsel, or the President

or Vice President, and the Attorney General or Deputy or

Associate Attorney General.

That policy is represented by this chart. On the White House side, the only people authorized to have these initial discussions on criminal cases are the President, Vice President, Deputy White House Counsel, and the White House Counsel. Within the Department of Justice, it is only the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General--a grand total of seven people.

As I noted during the Attorney General's testimony before the Judiciary Committee last month, that rule was changed in an April 2002 memo from Attorney General Ashcroft. The new policy permits initial communications on cases and investigations between the Office of the Deputy Attorney General and the office of the counsel to the President, and it also states that staff members of the Office of the Attorney General, if so designated by the Attorney General, may communicate directly with officials and staff of the Office of the President, the Office of the Vice President, and the office of counsel to the President.

The new rule is represented by this other chart. There are over 400 people in the White House now authorized to have those conversations with the Department of Justice, where before it was 4. Before, it was the very top administration officials in the White

House--the President, Vice President, Attorney General, White House Counsel, and Deputy White House Counsel. Who knows who all these other folks are. One of these boxes is Karl Rove. That makes you wonder. Down here, these are all the staff now within the Department of Justice who are authorized to have those communications, whereas before it was limited to the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and Associate Attorney General.

These charts demonstrate the extraordinary latitude now permitted the White House and Department of Justice to discuss sensitive investigations and prosecutions. With the clear exception of discussions related specifically to national security, where one can understand you might want to have discussion also with the White House when it is a national security issue that would involve the military and other agencies of Government, for regular criminal cases and for prosecutions, I am hard-pressed to imagine any reason the Clinton-era rule needed expansion. Indeed, when I put this question to Attorney General Gonzales when he was before our committee, he had no answer.

These are not just bureaucratic niceties. Rules governing conduct within organizations have an obvious and direct effect on the conduct of people within those organizations. Clearly, the politicization of the Department has been either a byproduct or a cause of this changed rule. After all, the more political people you allow to weigh in on sensitive investigations and cases, the more you run the risk--or, indeed, make it possible--that those investigations and cases become inappropriately politicized.

So this brings us to FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Given all this, perhaps I should not have been surprised when I reviewed the administration's proposed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ``modernization'' bill and compared it to the current FISA statute.

Under the current statute, title 50 of the U.S. Code, section 1804, passed in 1978, each application for a court order approving electronic surveillance under FISA must include the approval of the Attorney General, plus a number of required statements and certifications. One of those is a certification that information sought is ``foreign intelligence information'' and that such information ``cannot be reasonably obtained by normal investigative techniques.'' That certification--a critical proceeding with a FISA application--can currently be made by only a few people:

The Assistant to the President for National Security

Affairs or an executive branch official or officials

designated by the President from among those executive

officers employed in the area of national security or defense

and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of

the Senate.

That is actually a grand total of nine people, all senior level, all with a lot at stake in making sure they do the right thing. This makes perfect sense, given the importance of such a certification.

Now, let's take a look at the administration's proposed FISA ``modernization.'' That bill will allow the following people to certify applications for court orders under FISA:

The assistant to the President for National Security

Affairs or an executive branch official or officials

designated by the President to authorize electronic

surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

So any executive branch official or officials designated by the President can now authorize--or could if this passed--electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the most conservative estimate of the number of people who could be called ``executive branch officials'' under this definition is 9,050. The number is actually probably greater than that. So, in other words, if the administration had its way, more than 9,000 people would be eligible for designation by the President to certify an application for a warrant to the FISA Court. That is what this chart demonstrates.

Just to give you an idea, over here on this chart, we are talking about individuals--each block represents a person. Here, because the numbers are so big, we have divided by nine. This block represented the existing FISA certification authority to the nine Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed individuals who qualified, and we reduced it to one. Each one of these blocks would also represent nine, so multiply by nine. I am probably stretching my limits on the floor by using two charts at the same time. If I had to represent this with 9 people here and 9,000 here, I would have charts up to the ceiling of this room. That is the scale they are trying to change this to. By the way, one of these people, again, would be Karl Rove.

What we have is another example of the Bush administration trying to break down established barriers that defend fair, professional, and responsible decisions in national security and in the administration of justice.

Making matters worse, the administration's FISA bill would greatly expand the powers of the Attorney General in a number of key areas.

I don't think I need to say again that this Attorney General has thoroughly and utterly lost my confidence. I think he has also lost the confidence of this Chamber and of the American people. In my view, he does not merit any greater authority, particularly where that authority involves the power of the Federal Government to invade personal privacy for the purpose of secret wiretaps. We gave him that kind of authority when we gave him the authority with the national security letters. Look what he did with it. That authority was ``seriously misused.'' This is the man who has proven he cannot be trusted with these authorities.

The administration's bill would give the Attorney General expanded powers to hold on to information that was obtained without a warrant or obtained unintentionally. It would grant blanket immunity to any person or company that, from September 11 on, provided the intelligence community with any records, facilities, or assistance purportedly intended to protect against a terrorist attack. This blanket immunity power would allow the Attorney General to shut down a number of lawsuits and State investigations looking into whether and how companies provide detailed records about their customers' private communications.

It would allow powers to transfer any case before any court challenging the legality of classified communications intelligence activity, or any case in which the legality of such activity is even an issue, from the court it is filed in to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. This would be an extraordinary and unprecedented power for the Attorney General to forum-shop by grabbing cases out of open court and placing them before the secret FISA Court.

Finally, it would authorize the Attorney General to conduct surveillance directed toward foreign powers with fewer safeguards to ensure the surveillance will not capture the contents of Americans' communication.

This is just a sampling of the ways in which this bill would expand the Attorney General's authority under that FISA statute. We count at least 10 expansions of power.

Mr. President, the Department of Justice wields some of the most powerful tools held by any Federal agency.

The prosecutive power is probably the most severe power the Government holds. Among these powers is included the power to issue national security letters, the power through U.S. attorneys to prosecute criminal cases, and the power to help administer the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

These awesome powers must be used with competence, independence, and sound judgment. I am afraid the current Attorney General has not lived up to those high standards, and for that reason, I cannot support legislation that would increase this Attorney General's authority.

For that reason, I also call on him again to step down so we can begin to put this sad episode in the history--the proud history--of the Department of Justice behind us.

The Attorney General's resignation will not solve all the problems at the Department of Justice or the White House, but, regrettably, I have come to the conclusion it is a necessary first step.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe is an important component of comprehensive energy policy. In order to transition away from an overreliance on fossil fuels, we must promote investments in clean energy generation using renewable resources and reduce the growth in demand for energy by stressing efficiency.

I think every Member of the Senate recognizes that while there is no single technological silver bullet for our energy problems, there are many emerging technologies that if adopted and deployed could go a long way in meeting our vexing energy security and climate challenges.

We also know that Government can play a key role setting technology standards and clean energy goals, but shifting our Nation's and the world's energy system to clean energy alternatives will take substantial private sector investment. Here, too, the Government can play a key role by enabling the market conditions that will take the technology from the laboratory and turn it into fully operational energy producing facilities.

A number of reports have suggested that private investment in energy technologies is on the rise. While estimates vary widely, New Energy Finance has reported that 1,246 private equity funds put more than $70 billion into clean energy technologies in 2006--a 43-percent increase relative to 2005. Similarly, a survey conducted late last year by the National Venture Capital Association found that more than 90 percent of respondents expect to increase investment in the energy sector in 2007.

This is a unique time. There is growing consensus that our Nation's energy demands need to be better and more smartly managed and, more importantly, consensus that those growing energy demands should be met using clean, renewable energy resources.

The Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007, which I introduce along with my colleagues, Senators Gordon Smith and John Kerry, responds to the clear message that was delivered to both the Senate Energy and Senate Finance Committees by businesses that are on the cutting edge in this area. What we heard from the renewable energy community and the investment community is that what they need most is some certainty in the Tax Code.

This type of Federal assistance will support the needed long-term investments that ultimately will drive down the costs of electricity from renewable sources. Once the market for these new technologies is up and running, such facilities will be economically self-sustaining and profitable.

Our legislation adheres to the following principles:

Certainty. We put the existing tax incentives in place long enough to drive investment dollars so these new technologies can be commercialized. The core of this bill is a 5-year extension and modification of the production tax credit. This tax credit is designed to help businesses and utilities diversify their sources of energy and promote energy production using biomass, wind power, hydropower, geothermal power, and other clean, renewable resources. In addition, we extend for 8 years the investment tax credit that is so important in encouraging the large upfront outlay of capital that is required for solar and fuel cell power plants.

Technological neutrality. This bill levels the playing field by providing an incentive to both thermal energy production and electricity production that use renewable resources. It also modifies the tax credits to increase the incentive effect for all renewable technologies that can produce energy with zero carbon emissions.

Parity between investor-owned utilities and consumer-owned public power utilities. The bill provides a powerful, complementary incentive through the Clean Renewable Energy Bond Program so that public power and consumer-owned utilities that cannot benefit from tax credits are not financially disadvantaged when they invest in renewable facilities. Public power utilities are required to meet State renewable portfolio standards in the same way as investor-owned utilities, and Government should provide comparable financial incentives so that ultimately the cost of electricity can be reduced for all customers.

Importance of efficiency. This bill includes provisions that better utilize the incentives in the Tax Code to promote energy efficiency in manufacturing, construction of ``green buildings,'' and more efficient homes. These tax incentives help defray the additional costs associated with using new energy-efficient technologies, systems, and materials to construct and retrofit factories, commercial buildings, and houses in order to reduce energy demand. I know Senator Snowe has done a great deal of work in this area, and I look forward to working with her on these important provisions.

Another key component in this regard is an inducement for customers and utilities to upgrade to ``smart meters.'' A ``smart meter'' is a device with an electronic circuit board containing computer chips and a digital communications device. It allows a customer to interact with a utility in real time. This interaction allows the utility to better forecast and manage energy load and the customer can manage his energy use to lower the cost.

The electromechanical meter, the device that measures energy use with the little wheels turning inside it that is hooked up to almost every home and business in America, is almost the

same as when it was invented in the 1930s, when FDR was President.

Inefficient use of energy forces utilities to invest millions in building plants that operate only when energy demand peaks. As a result, the power these plants generate costs far more than power from other sources. This means more expensive power when demand is high.

Our bill would allow a faster recovery period for the costs of installing these new ``smart meters,'' which will make it easier for consumers to reduce energy use during these peak periods and shift their energy use to low-demand, low-cost times of the day.

We know that we don't have an unlimited pool of Federal resources, and I believe strongly that the Finance Committee should redirect subsidies that historically have propped up the oil and gas industry to now support this new direction in energy policy.

Our tax policy here should be driven by our energy policy goals. We cannot make a long-term difference with start-and-stop tax policy. But we must be mindful that after a reasonable period all tax incentives should be reexamined to see whether we have gotten the results we anticipated and whether the marketplace is ready to function on its own.

We should focus tax incentives where they will have the greatest impact in helping meet those goals. While this bill seeks to address renewable power and efficiency, I plan to continue working on legislation to effectively align the other incentives in the Tax Code that are designed to promote alternative fuels and vehicles.

We all witnessed how innovation in information technologies served as a forceful driver of productivity and economic growth in the recent past.

Energy technology innovations now have similar potential to fuel a new wave of economic growth and job creation.

I would like to note that this bill has already received the support of the following organizations: American Forest Resource Council; American Public Power Association; Biomass Investment Group; Energy Northwest; Large Public Power Council; Northwest Public Power Association; Southern California Public Power Authority; Solar Energy Industries Association; USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance; Chelan County PUD, Snohomish County PUD, Tacoma Power, and Seattle City Light; Washington Public Utility Districts Association; Simpson Investment Company, Tacoma; National Hydropower Association; Seattle Steam; and TechNet.

We have a tremendous opportunity in this Congress to set a new course in energy, environmental, and economic policy for the 21st century, and I hope we aggressively move forward and meet this challenge.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the Clean Energy Investment Assurance Act of 2007 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would provide immunity to individuals who report suspicious activities that may reflect terrorist threats to our transportation system. I am very honored that Senators Kyl and Lieberman have joined me in introducing this important bill.

The recent arrest in New Jersey of six men charged with conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix underscores the need for this bill. Law enforcement officials have noted that their investigation was triggered by the report of an alert store clerk who said a customer had brought in a video that showed men firing weapons and shouting in Arabic. This reminded the store clerk of the 9/11 terrorists.

But for the report of this store clerk, it is unlikely this potential plot against Fort Dix--a plot that if executed would have caused the loss of lives--would have been uncovered. That store clerk's action may have saved literally hundreds of lives and represents a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civil responsibility of ordinary American citizens, including the peaceful and tolerant people who form the vast majority of America's Muslim communities.

We must encourage average citizens to be watchful and report behavior that appears to be suspicious or threatening. That imperative is especially strong in the area of mass transportation, where there is the potential for mass casualties, where vehicles and aircraft can be used as weapons, and where there is often only a brief period of time for assessing and reacting to alarming behavior. That is why the slogan ``See something, say something,'' is used in the New York subway.

Unfortunately, we have seen that plaintiffs can misuse our legal system to chill the willingness of average citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. As was widely reported last fall, six Islamic clerics were removed from a USAirways flight after other passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of their assigned seats and had requested, but apparently were not using, seatbelt extenders that could possibly double as weapons.

As a result of that incident, what happened? Well, the USAirways officials decided to remove these individuals from the plane so they could further investigate. What happened to the individuals who courageously came forward and reported this suspicious behavior? Unbelievably, they were sued for voicing their fears that the clerics could be rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking. These honestly concerned passengers found themselves as defendants in lawsuits that were filed in March.

The existence of this lawsuit clearly illustrates how unfair it is to allow private citizens to possibly be intimidated into silence by the threat of litigation. Would that alert clerk in the store have come forward if he thought there was a chance he was going to be sued? Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.

Our bill would provide civil immunity in American courts for citizens

acting in good faith who report threats to our transportation systems.

The bill would encourage people to pass on information to appropriate transportation system officials and employees, to law enforcement or transportation security officials, or to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, or Transportation, without fear of being sued just for doing their civic duty.

Only disclosures made to those responsible officials and employees would be protected by the legislation's grant of immunity. Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is required. If these officials take reasonable action to mitigate the reported threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not discourage reasonable responses to them.

Let me make very clear this bill does not offer any protection whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to be false. No one will be able to use this bill, should it become law, as I hope it will, as a cover for mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.

Our laws and legal system must not be hijacked to intimidate people into silence or to prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting citizens who make good-faith reports--and that is an important qualification in this bill--protecting citizens who make good-faith reports of potentially lethal activities is essential to maintaining our homeland security.

Our bill offers protection in a measured way, that discourages abuses from either side. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Senator Lieberman and I have been holding a series of hearings, starting last year, in the Homeland Security Committee, to look at the threat of home-grown terrorists, domestic radicalization. We have learned a lot in the past 6 months. What we have learned has only strengthened my determination to push ahead with this bill.

The fact is, each of us has an important responsibility. The fight against domestic terrorism--or, indeed, any kind of terrorism--requires the active involvement of the citizenry of this country. It is not a fight that can be left simply to law enforcement. We simply could never have a sufficient number of law enforcement or intelligence officials to take care of every threat. Indeed, the foiled threat at Fort Dix shows us how important citizen involvement is.

I think this is a reasonable bill. It requires this immunity would be granted only for reports made in good faith. This would help encourage passengers on airlines and on trains to report suspicious activities. I think that is a necessary protection in this day and age.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would provide immunity to individuals who report suspicious activities that may reflect terrorist threats to our transportation system. I am very honored that Senators Kyl and Lieberman have joined me in introducing this important bill.

The recent arrest in New Jersey of six men charged with conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix underscores the need for this bill. Law enforcement officials have noted that their investigation was triggered by the report of an alert store clerk who said a customer had brought in a video that showed men firing weapons and shouting in Arabic. This reminded the store clerk of the 9/11 terrorists.

But for the report of this store clerk, it is unlikely this potential plot against Fort Dix--a plot that if executed would have caused the loss of lives--would have been uncovered. That store clerk's action may have saved literally hundreds of lives and represents a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civil responsibility of ordinary American citizens, including the peaceful and tolerant people who form the vast majority of America's Muslim communities.

We must encourage average citizens to be watchful and report behavior that appears to be suspicious or threatening. That imperative is especially strong in the area of mass transportation, where there is the potential for mass casualties, where vehicles and aircraft can be used as weapons, and where there is often only a brief period of time for assessing and reacting to alarming behavior. That is why the slogan ``See something, say something,'' is used in the New York subway.

Unfortunately, we have seen that plaintiffs can misuse our legal system to chill the willingness of average citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. As was widely reported last fall, six Islamic clerics were removed from a USAirways flight after other passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of their assigned seats and had requested, but apparently were not using, seatbelt extenders that could possibly double as weapons.

As a result of that incident, what happened? Well, the USAirways officials decided to remove these individuals from the plane so they could further investigate. What happened to the individuals who courageously came forward and reported this suspicious behavior? Unbelievably, they were sued for voicing their fears that the clerics could be rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking. These honestly concerned passengers found themselves as defendants in lawsuits that were filed in March.

The existence of this lawsuit clearly illustrates how unfair it is to allow private citizens to possibly be intimidated into silence by the threat of litigation. Would that alert clerk in the store have come forward if he thought there was a chance he was going to be sued? Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.

Our bill would provide civil immunity in American courts for citizens

acting in good faith who report threats to our transportation systems.

The bill would encourage people to pass on information to appropriate transportation system officials and employees, to law enforcement or transportation security officials, or to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, or Transportation, without fear of being sued just for doing their civic duty.

Only disclosures made to those responsible officials and employees would be protected by the legislation's grant of immunity. Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is required. If these officials take reasonable action to mitigate the reported threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not discourage reasonable responses to them.

Let me make very clear this bill does not offer any protection whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to be false. No one will be able to use this bill, should it become law, as I hope it will, as a cover for mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.

Our laws and legal system must not be hijacked to intimidate people into silence or to prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting citizens who make good-faith reports--and that is an important qualification in this bill--protecting citizens who make good-faith reports of potentially lethal activities is essential to maintaining our homeland security.

Our bill offers protection in a measured way, that discourages abuses from either side. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Senator Lieberman and I have been holding a series of hearings, starting last year, in the Homeland Security Committee, to look at the threat of home-grown terrorists, domestic radicalization. We have learned a lot in the past 6 months. What we have learned has only strengthened my determination to push ahead with this bill.

The fact is, each of us has an important responsibility. The fight against domestic terrorism--or, indeed, any kind of terrorism--requires the active involvement of the citizenry of this country. It is not a fight that can be left simply to law enforcement. We simply could never have a sufficient number of law enforcement or intelligence officials to take care of every threat. Indeed, the foiled threat at Fort Dix shows us how important citizen involvement is.

I think this is a reasonable bill. It requires this immunity would be granted only for reports made in good faith. This would help encourage passengers on airlines and on trains to report suspicious activities. I think that is a necessary protection in this day and age.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friends Senators Durbin and Snowe to reintroduce the Mom's Opportunity to Access Help, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression, MOTHERS, Act.

Senator Durbin has been and continues to be a leader on this issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to work with him on this important legislation. I would also like to recognize Representative Rush, who has been a champion for women battling

postpartum depression, PPD, in the House for many years. I am proud to say that his bill, The Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act, shares the same goals as the MOTHERS Act.

Mr. President, in the United States, 10 to 20 percent of women suffer from a disabling and often undiagnosed condition known as postpartum depression. Unfortunately, many women are unaware of this condition and often do not receive the treatment they need. That is why I am introducing the MOTHERS Act, so that women no longer have to suffer in silence and feel alone when faced with this difficult condition.

Last year, the great State of New Jersey passed a first of its kind law requiring doctors and nurses to educate expectant mothers and their families about postpartum depression. This bill was introduced in the State legislature by State Senate President Richard Codey. The attention of Senator Codey and his wife, Mary Jo Codey, who personally battled postpartum depression, have brought to the issue is remarkable. Brooke Shields, a graduate of Princeton University, has also shared her struggle with postpartum depression publicly and should be commended for her efforts to bring awareness to this condition. Postpartum depression affects women all across the country, not just in New Jersey, and that is why I believe the MOTHERS Act is so important.

In America, 80 percent of women experience some level of depression after childbirth. This is what people often refer to as the ``baby blues.'' However, each year, there are between 400,000 and 800,000 women across America who suffer from postpartum depression, a much more serious condition. These mothers often experience signs of depression and may lose interest in friends and family, feel overwhelming sadness or even have thoughts of harming their baby or harming themselves. People often assume that these feelings are simply the ``baby blues'', but the reality is much worse. Postpartum depression is a serious and disabling condition and new mothers deserve to be given information and resources on this condition so, if needed, they can get the appropriate help.

The good news is that treatment is available. Many women have successfully recovered from postpartum depression with the help of therapy, medication, and support groups. However, mothers and their families must be educated so that they understand what might occur after the birth of their child and when to get help. This legislation will require doctors and nurses to educate every new mother and their families about postpartum depression before they leave the hospital and offer the opportunity for new mothers to be screened for postpartum depression symptoms during the first year of postnatal check up visits. It also provides social services to new mothers and their families who are suffering and struggling with postpartum depression. By increasing education and early treatment of postpartum depression, mothers, husbands, and families, will be able to recognize the symptoms of this condition and help new mothers get the treatment they need and deserve.

The MOTHERS Act has another important component. While we continue to educate and help the mothers of today, we must also be prepared to help future moms. By increasing funding for research on postpartum conditions at the National Institutes of Health, we can begin to unravel the mystery behind this difficult to understand illness. The more we know about the causes and etiology of postpartum depression, the more tools we have to treat and prevent this heartbreaking condition.

We must attack postpartum depression on all fronts with education, screening, support, and research so that new moms can feel supported and safe rather than scared and alone. Many new mothers sacrifice anything and everything to provide feelings of security and safety to their innocent, newborn child. It is our duty to provide the same level of security, safety and support to new mothers in need.